How Many Americans Are on Welfare?

[21STEELERS21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

I'm always hearing about everyone being dependent on the government. So I was curious how many were still on welfare, since it was reformed in 1996.
I consider "welfare" getting a cash check each month. The old welfare program :AFDC was replaced with the TANF program. If you scroll down on the link,
you can see in the first year of the new welfare in 1996 12 million plus were still in the program. By 2010 it was down to 4.3 mil plus. In fiscal year
2014 it was down to 3.5 million and only 830,000 of those were adults.

If the number of people on true welfare keeps shrinking, why is everyone claiming people are more dependent on government.

Food stamps have greatly increased, but the daily support per individual per day is very small and 49% of those on food stamps are kids.
I don't think you can make folks less dependent by starving them. Your more likely to send them to the hospital where it will be more costly.

I think many have been hoodwinked to think the poor are making the government expensive, when the real money is ending up
in well off folks pockets.

 

[IndySteel]

You've got to be kidding me.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Damn, you be wrong a lot.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare
The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare
August 20, 2014

109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau...But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time...When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-third-americans-receiving-welfare-benefits/
Census figures show more than one-third of Americans receiving welfare benefits
August 29, 2014

Newly released Census data reveals nearly 110 million Americans – more than one-third of the country – are receiving government assistance of some kind.

The number counts people receiving what are known as “means-tested” federal benefits, or subsidies based on income. This includes welfare programs ranging from food stamps to subsidized housing to the program most commonly referred to as “welfare,” Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

You can try to divert people from the truth through the typical Liberal spin game...but not here.

 

[21STEELERS21]

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/caseload-data-2014

Here is the caseload data. TANF is the program where people get cash assistance. The average per month of adults getting cash assistance is 831,000.
Now we know who the real 1% are. Those on welfare, including children.

There are many more who get government assistance, like food stamps, student loans, Medicaid. But true welfare, receiving a check, is very small.
Clinton/Gingrich changed the old welfare program and it is extremely limited.

 

[Roy92040]

How Many Americans Are on Welfare?

They were born into it. It was passed down from generation to generation.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/caseload-data-2014

Here is the caseload data. TANF is the program where people get cash assistance. The average per month of adults getting cash assistance is 831,000.
Now we know who the real 1% are. Those on welfare, including children.

There are many more who get government assistance, like food stamps, student loans, Medicaid. But true welfare, receiving a check, is very small.
Clinton/Gingrich changed the old welfare program and it is extremely limited.

You fail in your attempt at spin, sorry.

You try to define "true" welfare. Much like tissues and Kleenex have become synonymous, so too have Welfare and Government assistance programs. Does it matter WHERE I get my check from, so long as it comes from the Federal Government? No. It's still taxpayer dollars given to people to subsidize their life's expenditures. It's cash assistance. Slicing and dicing it, as you are doing, is only an attempt to put lipstick on a pig.

What did taxpayers give to the 109,631,000 — the 35.4 percent of the nation — getting welfare benefits at the end of 2012?

82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau.
51,471,000 were in households on food stamps.
22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program.
20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income.
13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies.
5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.
4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance.

Your quote: "I'm always hearing about everyone being dependent on the government."

See above. That list? All of those programs are based on dependency.

Your quote: "So I was curious how many were still on welfare, since it was reformed in 1996. I consider "welfare" getting a cash check each month."

Spin. I wish I could say that only cash expenditures hurt my household budget and ignore swiping a credit card. Bottom line, it's still money out. Above, is a list, of programs Americans are dependent on...programs they use/abuse/need to survive...programs that are taxpayer funded and represent money out.

Your quote: "If the number of people on true welfare keeps shrinking, why is everyone claiming people are more dependent on government."

Again, see above. The #s of people dependent on the government - welfare, housing subsidies, food stamps, MEDICAID - is ever increasing. You may attempt to spin it, but dependency is growing exponentially.

 

[Superman]

student loan money - that which you're required to pay back - is now welfare?

hell, i guess financing a car or house is also welfare.

huh

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Here's a couple more snippets for ya 21. I personally loved these:

California, the nation's most-populated state, contained an estimated 38,332,521 people in 2013, says the Census Bureau. Texas had 26,448,193 people, New York had 19,651,127, and Florida had 19,552,860. But the combined 103,984,701 people in these four massive states still fell about 5,646,299 short of the 109,631,000 people on welfare.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, when President Obama was elected, there were 96,197,000 people living in households taking benefits from one or more federal welfare programs. After four years, by the fourth quarter of 2012, that had grown by 13,434,000.

 

[JupiterBnG]

There are many more who get government assistance, like food stamps, student loans, Medicaid. But true welfare, receiving a check, is very small.
Clinton/Gingrich changed the old welfare program and it is extremely limited.

But you're buying into the shell game... You're looking at the artificially narrow definition of "Welfare" and not taking into account that more and more money is being spent on those other government assistance programs which you've decided aren't "traditional" Welfare. However, I would be more inclined to accept the definition Tim Steelersfan presents: households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs."

It's not who gets a welfare check, it's how much money is being doled out in total. I don't believe that everyone who receives some kind of government assistance is abusing the programs, nor do I lack compassion for people who struggle to make ends meet, but I think that money is better spent either creating jobs, or training Welfare recipients to get better jobs that pay more so they can be self-supporting. I believe those programs were originally created with the spirit of being a temporary means of assisting people while they recovered from a hardship, and were not meant to be a lifestyle in and of themselves. There should be a lifetime cap on assistance, and when there are extenuating circumstances the first course of action is for the individual to appeal to charities, not create new government programs. The Church wants to insinuate itself into all aspects of government, let them start by acting according to the beliefs they profess and take care of some of the needy.

 

[Troglodyte]

Along these lines, I once got into an argument with a professor of economics and law over welfare recipients and the amount of money spent on them and how that chapped my ***. He said it pissed him off too but left me a thought provoking point:

It's better to keep them fat and happy than to leave them and hungry and desperate.

In other words, if we take away their welfare, we'd like to believe they would do the responsible and morale thing, but these are largely irresponsible and immoral people. What do you suppose would actually happen and would it be more cost-effective?

 

[21STEELERS21]

Here is the foxnews math on those receiving government assistance. 1 person receiving welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and student loan = 4 people
They double, triple and quadruple count people.

The food stamp benefit = approx. $1.40 per meal or $4.20 per day. If we can throw 3 trillion at Iraq, we can easily afford feeding fellow Americans and simultaneously
supporting farmers.

 

[madinsomniac]

A significant number of friends, aquaintences and family members of mine have worked under the table while collecting government assistance. I have to believe the issue is widespread because most of them are not uneducated and impoverished. I dont believe we can hang the needy out to dry, but i do believe a huge overhaul is needed, starting with drug and alcohol testing to collect. if you have money to blow on luxuries you do not need governement assistance.. take that from the mouth of a man whose father lost his job in the millsduring the early 80's and whose family struggled through rough times through the early 90's. I saw my dad collect food stamps and went to food banks, but also volunteered to help at those food banks every chance he got, never had welfare, but rather took any minor job he could to make ends meet... and he had an 8th grade education... I have little sympathy for those who abuse the system and there are a great many lazy worthless persons doing so as we speak.

 

[oneforthebus]

In other words, if we take away their welfare, we'd like to believe they would do the responsible and morale thing, but these are largely irresponsible and immoral people. What do you suppose would actually happen and would it be more cost-effective?

I think that's debatable. Many people don't work and support themselves because they don't have to. I mean, it really boils down to basic psychology. It's like the parent who continues to provide their adult child with food, housing, shelter, cell phone, etc. and then wonders why they never leave the nest.

it really becomes a catch 22 for a lot of people. I have known people who can't better themselves too much because working harder and earning more money causes them to lose benefits. Why work and try to gain experience and move up through the employment ranks if it means losing your food, healthcare, cell phone, housing? We have a system that penalizes those who try to get ahead and rewards those who don't. I don't know how you change that exactly, but it needs to change. The welfare to work program got a ton of people off the welfare rolls...if work was a requirement for other benefits I'd expect the same.

 

[MT~Forged]

The food stamp benefit = approx. $1.40 per meal or $4.20 per day. If we can throw 3 trillion at Iraq, we can easily afford feeding fellow Americans and simultaneously
supporting farmers.

At least we are in agreement with this. Some of the other stuff, not so much

 

[MT~Forged]

I think that's debatable. Many people don't work and support themselves because they don't have to. I mean, it really boils down to basic psychology. It's like the parent who continues to provide their adult child with food, housing, shelter, cell phone, etc. and then wonders why they never leave the nest.

it really becomes a catch 22 for a lot of people. I have known people who can't better themselves too much because working harder and earning more money causes them to lose benefits. Why work and try to gain experience and move up through the employment ranks if it means losing your food, healthcare, cell phone, housing? We have a system that penalizes those who try to get ahead and rewards those who don't. I don't know how you change that exactly, but it needs to change. The welfare to work program got a ton of people off the welfare rolls...if work was a requirement for other benefits I'd expect the same.

A good first step would be to come up with a true "Liveable Wage", and that can not include luxuries. Cable TV, Cell Phones, Alcohol, Smokes, Drugs, fast food, pre-processed foods do not count. Education is a requirement of the program, get some or get out of the program. Once this "Wage" is established, you can continue to receive "Assistance" up to that level. As you progress through your career, you will get less assistance, but still have the ability to get to that "Liveavle Wage". If you do not attempt to get employment, you will only receive assistance for a fixed period of time at a discounted rate, you want a liveable wage, get a job like those of us that are ASSISTING you.

 

[21STEELERS21]

If you want to broadly define welfare then all Americans are on welfare. Airlines, National Parks, Federal Highways, Gasoline, Food, Water, etc... are all subsidized by
the federal government. Even watching the Steelers on TV.

I'm all for Americans being self reliant. But it's hard to be self reliant if your hungry, sick, uneducated, homeless, etc... Wish everyone could have the best of luck, but it doesn't work out that way and some need a helping hand on occasion.

 

[hamster]

If you want to broadly define welfare then all Americans are on welfare. Airlines, National Parks, Federal Highways, Gasoline, Food, Water, etc... are all subsidized by
the federal government. Even watching the Steelers on TV.

I'm all for Americans being self reliant. But it's hard to be self reliant if your hungry, sick, uneducated, homeless, etc... Wish everyone could have the best of luck, but it doesn't work out that way and some need a helping hand on occasion.

I can say with a great degree of confidence, that no one here has a problem with giving a helping hand. The problem is multi-generational welfare, as a career.

 

[FordFairLane]

How Many Americans Are on Welfare

Too God Damned many! Is that a viable answer?

 

[FordFairLane]

I could "fix" the system in about an hour.
1. To qualify for Government assistance you first HAVE to work. If you are deemed disabled you will be given a position that dependent on your level of disability will allow you to still function. If you refuse to work or get let go of three jobs you are cut off from the system forever.

2. Get rid of social security disability. No need since if you are on SSI you already get free healthcare, ebt/snap card, low income housing. ect... I then take that savings and pass in on to SSA for people who actually deserve it.

3. You CANNOT receive more money back from your fed or state tax return than you put into the system. I see people every Feb-April get 5k, 10, 15k! when they actually didn't work or barely worked the year before. I take those savings and give it to the middle class who have been paying in and working all tehse years just so others didn't have to.

4. If you are a felon you instantly do not qualify for any entitlement program.

5. Random drug tests will be a requirement. Not come in a Thursday the 24th and we will test you. NO, they come to your house and walk you to the bathroom where you piss in front of a total stranger. Again, if you test positive you are immediately off the system forever.

World just became a better place.

 

[Steeltime]

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/caseload-data-2014

Here is the caseload data. TANF is the program where people get cash assistance. The average per month of adults getting cash assistance is 831,000.

So you conveniently exclude those receiving Section 8 housing assistance, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, etc.? Hey, I like this game of simply ignoring the bad numbers. If I ignore 6 games this season, the Steelers were undefeated!!

Here are the actual numbers for citizens receiving "means tested" benefits from the Federal government:

All households 121,286,000

Received means-tested noncash benefits 33,382,000

One means-tested noncash benefit 13,383,000
Food stamps 2,159,000
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 407,000
Free or reduced-price lunch or breakfast 3,169,000
Energy assistance 395,000
Public or subsidized rental housing 962,000
Medicaid 6,291,000

Two means-tested noncash benefits 9,321,000
Food stamps and Medicaid 3,183,000
Food stamps and free or reduced-price lunch or breakfast 364,000
Other combinations 5,775,000

Three means-tested noncash benefits 6,876,000
Food stamps, Medicaid, and free or reduced-price lunch or breakfast 2,888,000
Food stamps, Medicaid, and public or subsidized rental housing 1,316,000
Other combinations 2,672,000

Four or more means-tested noncash benefits 3,802,000

Female family householder, no husband present,
with own children under 18 8,495,000

Received means-tested noncash benefits 6,437,000
One means-tested noncash benefit 1,243,000
Food stamps (1) 45,000
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 41,000
Free or reduced-price lunch or breakfast 654,000
Public or subsidized rental housing, or energy assistance 40,000
Medicaid 463,000

Two means-tested noncash benefits 1,409,000
Food stamps and Medicaid 273,000
Food stamps and free or reduced-price lunch or breakfast 155,000
Other combinations 981,000

Three means-tested noncash benefits 1,820,000
Food stamps, Medicaid, and free or reduced-price lunch or breakfast 1,144,000
Food stamps, Medicaid, and public or subsidized rental housing 103,000
Other combinations 573,000

Four or more means-tested noncash benefits 1,965,000

These numbers are from the U.S. Census Bureau, Table 4 (pick a quarter).

http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/publications/tables/hsehld-char.htmla

I always suspected that the Census Bureau was a right-wing, Fox News-loving zealot.

Finally, the evidence proving my suspicion.

So, no, the number is not 831,000 - it is about 15 times that number.

 

[JupiterBnG]

A good first step would be to come up with a true "Liveable Wage", and that can not include luxuries. Cable TV, Cell Phones, Alcohol, Smokes, Drugs, fast food, pre-processed foods do not count. Education is a requirement of the program, get some or get out of the program. Once this "Wage" is established, you can continue to receive "Assistance" up to that level. As you progress through your career, you will get less assistance, but still have the ability to get to that "Liveavle Wage". If you do not attempt to get employment, you will only receive assistance for a fixed period of time at a discounted rate, you want a liveable wage, get a job like those of us that are ASSISTING you.

Pretty much my thought on the matter. I'd go a step further and say that government assistance shouldn't be given in the form of cash, only fixed-form amenities and services. The problem with most of the current programs is that they simply give money or barterable goods, which can be spent or traded for irresponsible things.

Need a place to live? Build some public housing blocs that provide safe and healthy, but spare, living accommodations.
Hungry? Instead of food stamps or WIC, have a government-run food kitchen where healthy, nutritional meals are served. They can be right next to the public housing.
Need to get somewhere? Establish effective public transit and community shuttle programs.

No one NEEDS a TV. No one NEEDS a computer. No one NEEDS a cell phone. No one NEEDS a car. None of those things should be provided or subsidized through taxpayer-funded programs, and if you can afford them while receiving government assistance, then clearly your level of "need" should be reassessed. It might seem heartless, but government assistance shouldn't provide anything more than subsistence-level benefits. Anything else is simply rewarding indolence.

And obviously if there are verifiable justifications, like medical conditions, for why someone can't ever work, create a separate program for those people and make it VERY difficult to abuse (require multiple independent physicians to document verification of medical conditions, as well as provide ongoing evaluation and treatment under Medicare/Medicaid, for example). Here I would say you provide some additional "comfort" amenities - if their condition is such that they can't work, I'm not suggesting you put them in a dark cell and shove food under the door, and maybe you can provide them with specialized occupational training and give them opportunities to perform some kind of meaningful work that they can do at home with a phone and a computer.

The bottom line is that, all my life, I've busted my *** to have the things I have today. I don't want to work hard so I can pay taxes so that someone else can have the same things. I'm all for making sure that people aren't starving or homeless, but think of how much MORE we could do for the truly needy if we eliminated the excesses and abuses of the system.

 

[Troglodyte]

I think that's debatable. Many people don't work and support themselves because they don't have to. I mean, it really boils down to basic psychology. It's like the parent who continues to provide their adult child with food, housing, shelter, cell phone, etc. and then wonders why they never leave the nest.

Sure, some would get their **** together. But many aren't bright enough to understand the relationship between decisions and consequences. Much like our prisons. If you ask repeat offenders why they're in prison, they'll usually say because the police and courts put them there, not because they made stupid decisions.

 

[21STEELERS21]

http://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/nfl-funding-summary-12-2-11.pdf

This is an old report, but interesting information. Billionaires can afford NFL toys, but the public pays a good portion
for their stadiums. There is subsidized housing for you. Foxnews wants you flustered by the little bucks going to the poor,
so you'll take your eyes off the big bucks going to the well off. How much money do you think the Fed government pays
to lawyers every year?

 

[JupiterBnG]

http://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/nfl-funding-summary-12-2-11.pdf

This is an old report, but interesting information. Billionaires can afford NFL toys, but the public pays a good portion
for their stadiums. There is subsidized housing for you. Foxnews wants you flustered by the little bucks going to the poor,
so you'll take your eyes off the big bucks going to the well off. How much money do you think the Fed government pays
to lawyers every year?

Don't mistake my anti-welfare views for sympathy for billionaires. Stadiums and other **** that aren't a public investment for the community that builds and hosts them shouldn't be funded by taxpayer dollars either. If Joe Billionaire needs a stadium for his sports team, he can ******* well pony up the cost himself. If you want the city to pay for it with taxpayer money, then that stadium's revenue should be used as in income source for the city, to offset the cost of public services and other public works.

 

[hamster]

http://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/nfl-funding-summary-12-2-11.pdf

This is an old report, but interesting information. Billionaires can afford NFL toys, but the public pays a good portion
for their stadiums. There is subsidized housing for you. Foxnews wants you flustered by the little bucks going to the poor,
so you'll take your eyes off the big bucks going to the well off. How much money do you think the Fed government pays
to lawyers every year?

How is my housing subsidized? I hope you don't mean my tax deduction. That is the government allowing me to keep more of MY money, not the government paying for my house.